Dear @FordMotorCompany

[trev5150]

Is the issue that we necessarily need to set up charging locations for anything less than 100%? I can imagine the complaints when people mistakenly don't get a full charge on a trip so 100% makes a safe default from a travel perspective.

With this in mind, I think there should be a way to set a radius on the charging location so it will use those <100% settings for example within your entire metro area.

This. I have to have a different charging location depending on which parking spot I’m in at work otherwise the truck will give me the “plugged in not charging” bit. It’s absurd.

Sponsored

 

[ivan256]

I agree with your (the OP) frustration, and I have chosen to disable updates on my truck.

I might turn them back on if there's some compelling addition to the functionality of the truck. But the recent ones have been either benign, or for the benefit of Ford over me. And I own the truck.

If I could roll back to the original range meter update I would do so.

The truck works fine right now. If they're going to change it there better be something in it for me.

Anyway, I think that a reasonable reaction to your frustration would be to do the same. Turn updates off. You don't need them.

 

[Lytning]

Dear @Ford Motor Company

Thank you for once again sending an update to my truck that has caused all of my charge locations to ignore the 90% setting and charge the truck to 100%. If you’re trying to deliberately prematurely degrade my battery pack, this tactic is doing a great job.

Since your idiot software determines charging location to the foot, I now have to delete and re-create 3 different charging locations in the parking lot here at my work.

This is gonna be awesome since I have to delete the locations I previous built (5 or 6 times already), hook up the truck to two different plugs, move the truck to 3-4 locations, plug in the truck to create new locations, then save and set the limits and times AGAIN.

This is Tucson, so it’s minimum 105 degrees F in the lot, and probably 45 minute to an hour with this BS.

Super fun. Thanks for the opportunity.

I sympathize with your issue. It helps me understand that there may indeed be a benefit to my issue of not getting updates to install. I have to drive to the parking lot at Total Wine to get updates to install ... no kidding ... it has happened on 3 separate occasions. I just go in to the store, pick out a few bottles of wine, come back to my truck, and the previous numerously-failed updates have been magically installed. I park at least 50 yards from the store in the middle of the parking lot to be away from all other vehicles. (Yes, I am connected to high speed broadband WiFi at home.)

I also have an issue with Service History since 12/2022 not showing on either my Ford.com or FordPass app accounts. I have been told 5 times that they have corrected the issue, but when I go to my accounts the Service History is still not there. They really do seem to be incompetent at software.

Meanwhile, Ford is developing new subscription software "services" for our entertainment. I don't know how they are going to satisfy owners with paid services not working when they are unable to satisfy owners with "free" services not working.

 

[astricklin]

Meanwhile, Ford is developing new subscription software "services" for our entertainment. I don't know how they are going to satisfy owners with paid services not working when they are unable to satisfy owners with "free" services not working.

Ahh see but when it's a paid service, the company has a vested interest in keeping things working and customers happy. When there's no revenue stream from the application, making any changes is just costing money.

You've gotta think like a bean counter.

 

[ctuan13]

I agree with your (the OP) frustration, and I have chosen to disable updates on my truck.

I might turn them back on if there's some compelling addition to the functionality of the truck. But the recent ones have been either benign, or for the benefit of Ford over me. And I own the truck.

If I could roll back to the original range meter update I would do so.

The truck works fine right now. If they're going to change it there better be something in it for me.

Anyway, I think that a reasonable reaction to your frustration would be to do the same. Turn updates off. You don't need them.

Honestly I'm in the same boat as you. I've brought up before how I'm not a fan of perpetually connected services, etc so I have my telemetry module disconnected at all times unless I need to get an update to work.

I got 4.1.2 installed months ago and I haven't felt any need to update past that point so the module's been disconnected and I've had zero issues. I actually experienced the charge location deletion glitch last time around and it led to my truck being charged to 100% at my home, despite it always being set to 90%. Having zero interest in repeating that I haven't bothered updating it again.

But I definitely agree that I miss the super accurate GOM. @Ford Motor Company if you release an update that simply adds a SOC value to the standard IP display mode, brings back the old GOM and includes a way to manually set a universal charge limit for all AC charging, I'd be all over it. But until then, I haven't found a single compelling reason to update.

 

[ivan256]

Ahh see but when it's a paid service, the company has a vested interest in keeping things working and customers happy. When there's no revenue stream from the application, making any changes is just costing money.

You've gotta think like a bean counter.

How a software product manager sees it is that if it can't be updated online it has to work right, but if you can patch it remotely we can always fix it if/when a customer complains. The minimum viable product (MVP) for a connected service has a lower quality bar.

If quality issues are causing you to lose subscribers, you need a stickier feature set. It should be difficult for customers to decide to cancel even if things aren't working quite right.

 

[trev5150]

How a software product manager sees it is that if it can't be updated online it has to work right, but if you can patch it remotely we can always fix it if/when a customer complains. The minimum viable product (MVP) for a connected service has a lower quality bar.

If quality issues are causing you to lose subscribers, you need a stickier feature set. It should be difficult for customers to decide to cancel even if things aren't working quite right.

The attitude of SW devs towards users is generally pretty atrocious. In my experience as a UAV test pilot in the defense world it’s only marginally better because lives and millions of IRAD dollars (and, often, CRAD dollars) are at stake.

The car and truck guys need to be in control, not the software and design dweebs.

 

[ivan256]

The attitude of SW devs towards users is generally pretty atrocious. In my experience as a UAV test pilot in the defense world it’s only marginally better because lives and millions of IRAD dollars (and, often, CRAD dollars) are at stake.

The car and truck guys need to be in control, not the software and design dweebs.

I'd consider myself both of those things and had started to write up a defence of us dweebs. But the reality is it doesn't matter what percentage of us are good eggs vs. bad apples. Humans are the problem. Most of us are greedy and lacking in empathy for people we don't know personally. Some executive will dangle several hundred thousand dollars in front of a software developer to introduce some capability and business model that walks the fine line between abusing the customer so much they cancel and continuing to shell out cash every month. And some developer will take the money and propose the next one. There's always at least some.

I won't even claim to be innocent. I've chosen driving a really excellent $80k irrational toy every day over walking away when asked to ship garbage.

Kumbaya and careful what you wish for I guess.

 

[TaxmanHog]

@Ford Motor Company if you release an update that simply adds a SOC value to the standard IP display mode,

This part is out, newest release!
Priority Update: 22-PU0930-RBA-CHM: Frunk Chime Volume Increase

 

[trev5150]

I'd consider myself both of those things and had started to write up a defence of us dweebs. But the reality is it doesn't matter what percentage of us are good eggs vs. bad apples. Humans are the problem. Most of us are greedy and lacking in empathy for people we don't know personally. Some executive will dangle several hundred thousand dollars in front of a software developer to introduce some capability and business model that walks the fine line between abusing the customer so much they cancel and continuing to shell out cash every month. And some developer will take the money and propose the next one. There's always at least some.

I won't even claim to be innocent. I've chosen driving a really excellent $80k irrational toy every day over walking away when asked to ship garbage.

Kumbaya and careful what you wish for I guess.

The self-awareness is actually refreshing.

Didn't mean to cut so far into the quick. Well, maybe a little. I guess what I really mean is that teams need to be led. It's been my experience that SW teams in particular need more non-SW engineering leadership than other teams (mechanical immediately comes to mind) because of their ability to swerve off goal and schedule and more importantly to do the minimum coding to hit the next goal, mostly because every change they make can break so much stuff it's crazy. Once a thing kinda works, they don't want to screw with it too much because bug hunting is so much fun and <sarcasm> doesn't take a lot of time at all </sarcasm>. It's not perfect, but we can make the timeline in someone's Gantt chart.

This is compounded with the fact that good SW people know their value, don't like to be told their product sucks and they need to fix it, and they can go anywhere else and get more money.

Another thing I've learned as a beta tester test pilot is that when the hardware is done, that's pretty much it. After that it's integration and software fixes to hardware problems. The thing about that is I'm the in-house test pilot (one of 4, actually). We don't send updates to customers after having taken it out to fly once. We wring the shit out of it and find the problems before the code gets out the door. Here's it's clear that the ethos of the gaming development world has invaded the auto industry. Let the early adopters be the crowd-sourced beta testers (and in some cases, end-stage alpha by the looks of things).

That leads me to the thought that advent of OTA updates are really to blame. If the code had to be solid before it saw the light of day, then there wouldn't be half the issues we see in these two spaces. There were no updates to NES games. The cartridge was the cartridge. It was either ready to ship or it wasn't.

 

[ChrisC]

So glad I cancelled my reservation.
So many issues with the Lightning from reading here and elsewhere, yes, a few seem to have no major issues.

I have owned a 2012 Nissan Leaf since Dec 2011 and had ZERO issues. There were 2 returns to the dealer for free upgrades:

1) upgrade the charging software to avoid a remote chance that my GE Watt Station would cause problems if I was charging during an electrical storm AND the power went out.

2) to add additional battery shielding under the vehicle.

Yes, there were some battery issues for people living in very hot climates like Parts of Arizona, which Nissan settled - I never had that problem living in a relatively moderate climate.

Yes, AT&T decided to do away with 2G and then 3G which the Leaf used to communicate for telemetrics like pre-warming the vehicle, which I didn't use.

I would venture to say, Ford bit off more than they could chew and rushed the Lightning to market before all the bugs were worked out.

They could have made a very simple and inexpensive F-150 Lightning with the things that buyers want and need for simple, reliable, use. Instead they put on too many bells and whistles and drove the price up up and away losing 80%+ reservation holders.

Where is the Model-T of electric pickup trucks? That would have been a game changer and they could have instantly cornered the market AND helped reduce our reliance on oil and gasoline tremendously at the same time.

A missed opportunity @Ford Motor Company

Sorry but I have to disagree and think you are missing out. I have also owner an early model EV (2014 Ford Focus Electric) with no issues so much that we purchased another 2017 FFE. It had the remote features that was lost with the 3G upgrades and that was a disappointment. I love the Lightning with all the features and planned to get the Pro until I had no option but to get a higher trim level. I needed a truck because I was tired of carrying loads in my hatchback and my ICE truck died and I wanted a EV truck. The Lightning is larger than I wanted but it is an awesome truck and it handles like a car. I think the majority of owners have no major issues and the problem are of the few and I have been following this group daily since the first Lightnings were delivered. I agree that they should of made a cheaper truck (like the Ranger) an EV that many more people could afford even if it had less range and towing capacity. I also think they never should of discontinued the FFEs since they are great EVs. Perhaps they were following Tesla's idea to get the high end vehicles out there to make a statement and target the market that already has rooftop solar and battery storage at home and doesn't need abundant public charging stations. Whatever the reason, they came out with a great truck and I think you might regret cancelling your order one day

 

[ivan256]

Another thing I've learned as a beta tester test pilot is that when the hardware is done, that's pretty much it. After that it's integration and software fixes to hardware problems. The thing about that is I'm the in-house test pilot (one of 4, actually). We don't send updates to customers after having taken it out to fly once. We wring the shit out of it and find the problems before the code gets out the door.

This is why things like Tesla pushing out a fix to the brakes within 24 hours after a bug being discovered drives me nuts. People's lives are at stake!

That leads me to the thought that advent of OTA updates are really to blame. If the code had to be solid before it saw the light of day, then there wouldn't be half the issues we see in these two spaces. There were no updates to NES games. The cartridge was the cartridge. It was either ready to ship or it wasn't.

This was exactly my point above. It's not necessarily about whether the updates are free or paid. The fact that the updates are possible justifies cutting corners.

You mentioned the video game developer mentality... but game developers used to develop some of the most tested and reliable software out there when they shipped code on a ROM. It all went to crap once they were able to push updates.

This is evident everywhere in the software industry. I am a hobby CNC machinist. My most reliable machines are from the '80s. The software isn't pretty, but it works. Newer machines always have some update that trades some problem for some different problem. And if you buy one second hand they want you to pay for the software again - enough that perfectly good equipment gets scrapped because it's cheaper to buy a new one than pay for licenses. And don't even get me started about Fusion 360.

 

[Monkey]

The vehicle definitely needs a non-location based charge limit setting.

it'll just forget that too...

I'm an independent software engineer/consultant and work has been a bit slow for me since all the covid nonsense messed up a couple of my primary clients. Maybe I should apply at Ford for a position on their software team. Somehow I think I'm probably over-qualified based on their track record with software and UI design.

Seriously though, I wonder how much of this is done in-house vs outsourced and then they try to cobble it together. How much is limited by all the various modules they're trying to make work together. While I think they've made a great truck, it seems like they're fighting an uphill battle as far as the software goes and it will make a huge difference on their T3 platform if they're designing an integrated system from the ground up.

 

[MickeyAO]

I'd be interested in seeing the data on this specifically for cell chemistry used in FORD battery packs. Could you provide some detail so we can make educated decisions on our charging?

I am unable to publish the data on this forum if I want to keep my job. I have quantified the damage done by both fast charging and/or charging to 100% SOC (actual, not useable). You can search for papers published by EssEs (Energy Storage Systems Evaluation and Safety) or EVESE ( Electric Vehicle and Energy Storage Evaluation). Sorry, I cannot link directly to the reports.

I would specifically look for the NCA Fast Charging and then figure out which vehicle uses NCA chemistry.

With as big as this pack is, you will not notice the damage, but it WILL be damaging the cells.

Within the next several moths, I will specifically know what happens in the Lightning cell. Just have to finish off the MachE cells and disassemble a couple of Lightning modules.

 

[MickeyAO]

one or two random 100% (95%) charges is not going to do anymore more damage that just normal day to day charging already does and you know it so stop feeding this ridiculous fear that it does. one fast DC charge probably does more damage than a few random 100% (95%) level 2 charges.

See post above. It absolutely will cause more damage at the cell level, but people will not notice it. One of the first 'off script' test I want to do is recreate my personal normal charge/discharge profile and then throw in a random 100% Level2 charge and a couple of DCFC. This will then quantify how much damage (it will be measured in mAh lost) actually happens.

I've done this in the past for several of the vehicles we have tested. I was amazed (n a bad way) by a couple of cells, and impressed by a couple of others.

Sponsored